Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ELDER JIMINEZ PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00436-MIS-JHR
GEORGE DEDOS, in his official capacity as
Warden, Cibola County Correctional
Facility; MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, in
her official capacity as Acting Field Office
Director, El Paso Field Office, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacity as
Acting Director, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, in her official
capacity as Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security; and PAMELA BONDI,
in her official capacity as Attorney General of
the United States,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Elder Jiminez Perez’s Verified Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 2, filed February 17, 2026.
On March 5, 2026, the federal Respondents filed a Response to the Petition. ECF No. 6.
Therein, counsel for Respondents acknowledges that the facts of this case are “substantially
similar” to Duhan v. Noem, No. 2:26-cv-00019-MIS-JFR, 2026 WL 266619 (D.N.M. Feb. 2,
2026), id. at 2, and that “this Court’s decision in Duhan v. Noem, would control the result here if
the Court adheres to that decision, as the facts are not materially distinguishable for purposes of
the Court’s decision on the legal issue of which statutory provision authorizes Petitioner’s
detention[,]” id. at 3. Counsel did not distinguish this case from other cases this Court has decided
Case 1:26-cv-00436-MIS-JHR Document 7 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 3

2
recently involving the detention of noncitizens already present in the United States—as opposed
to noncitizens detained at a border crossing or port of entry—but argued that Petitioner is an
applicant for admission seeking admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(2). Id. at 2-3.
The Court finds that the facts of this case are materially indistinguishable from prior cases
the Undersigned Judge has decided involving habeas petitioners who were detained within the
United States, rather than at a border crossing or port of entry, and adopts the findings contained
in its Order Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, Case No.
2:25-cv-0113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL 92873 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2026). Briefly, the Court finds that 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention, his continued detention without a bond hearing
violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and, as such, he is entitled to habeas relief.
The Court further finds that Respondents failed to articulate a legitimate interest in Petitioner’s
continued detention and therefore orders his immediate release. See generally Resp., ECF No. 6.
The Court further orders that Petitioner shall not be re-detained without a pre-deprivation
bond hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger or flight risk.
Finally, the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its Order and to entertain any
motions for attorneys’ fees.
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED;
2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Elder Jiminez Perez
from custody/detention without restraints beyond those that existed before his
unlawful detention;
Case 1:26-cv-00436-MIS-JHR Document 7 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 3

3
3. Respondents SHALL RETURN all of Petitioner’s seized belongings to Petitioner
including, but not limited to, any government-issued identification or immigration
documents, such as a state driver’s license or Employment Authorization Document
to the extent such items were seized and remain in Respondents’ possession;
4. Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner without a pre-deprivation hearing
before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a
danger or flight risk;
5. Respondents SHALL file a Notice of Compliance with this Order as soon as
practicable after Petitioner’s release;
6. The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain
jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00436-MIS-JHR Document 7 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 3